Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I would like to take note of document 8 on the Red, which is the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's 'Review of the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act (2012)', the review by KPMG. For people who for some reason may be unaware, the Stronger Futures legislation is the legislation that replaced the Northern Territory intervention—the legislation that the Labor government brought in, continuing the top-down punitive approach of the Northern Territory intervention. For some reason, it does not include a review of the income management measures.

The context of the review is that it is primarily 'a desktop analysis of existing data and reports, complemented by selected consultations with Australian and NT government officials'. The review takes place in three phases: reading of the legislation; literature review, consultation and data collection; and report and finalisation. The review notes—and this is particularly important—there being 'a lack of data'. They then say: 'Assessed against the overarching objective of the act, which is to support Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory to lead long, strong independent lives where communities, families and children are safe and happy, this review finds overall that the first three years of the operation of the act have been largely effective.' I fail to see, through this review, how they could say that when there is no evidence to back up that statement and they themselves comment that there is a lack of data.

A whole 11 stakeholders were consulted, seven of which are government agencies—either NT government departments or the Commonwealth! To Commonwealth agencies: 'Do you think your operation under the Stronger Futures Act has been effective?' 'Yes, I do!' Of course they are going to say that! And who else was consulted? Outback Stores. Is that the same Outback Stores who have been pinged a couple of times very recently for supplying cheap sugary drinks, when their own protocols outline that they should not be putting cheap sugary drinks on sale and they are trying to promote healthy foods? In fact, that is why under the Northern Territory intervention the government said they were putting in place Outback Stores—so they could sell healthy food. If you are consulting government agencies, of course they are going to say they are doing a good job.

I am not surprised that they talk about a lack of data because it is quite obvious that there was not a proper evaluation of these measures under this review. Under 'Tackling alcohol' they say: overall, there is insignificant data available to the reviewers that would evidence comprehensive and robust links between the act and changes in key indicators of alcohol related harm over the period 2012 to 2015.' That is hardly being 'largely effective'. Under 'Land reform' they say: 'There is evidence to suggest that there has been some increase in take-up and investments made in communities by the government that would not otherwise have occurred.' Take-up by the government? You did not need this act to do that. Under 'Food security' it says: 'While it is not possible for this review to quantify the extent of the contribution made by recent store licensing measures to health and wellbeing outcomes in communities, the review finds that the response of stakeholders to the reforms was broadly positive.' Oh, that would be the seven government agencies that they have talked to and Outback Stores!

This is a fraud of a review. When you look at the very comprehensive review of the Northern Territory evaluation, it shows that the Northern Territory evaluation did not meet any of its objectives. Now we have this 'desktop review'—and I will be exploring in estimates how much it cost to get KPMG to carry out a desktop review. By doing a desktop review, they were obviously limited in the scope of what they could do. When is this government going to take seriously what it is doing in Aboriginal communities, and address Aboriginal disadvantage seriously, when it can't even be bothered funding a proper review of Stronger Futures and the measures they helped put in place? It is time to abandon that approach. It is time to abandon the top-down, income management, punitive, paternalistic process. It has been almost 10 years. It has failed. Admit it and do something better.